Wikis love them or hate them?

[SiouxSinner]

those who are against wiki, I just don't understand your logic. How does a a false statement contradict a true one?

mint tastes terrible. this is a true statement, because maybe some people think that mint really does taste terrible. it's just as true as saying that mint tastes good. the only concrete statement that you could make would be that "mint might have a taste when you put it in your mouth."

Maybe you should wiki the word opinion and statement, or rather that use a dictionary, because the statement "mint taste terrible" is an opinion not a "true statement" to everyone...in fact I like the taste of mint and so do a lot of tea drinkers.

No, sorry mint will always have a taste when you put it in your mouth, unless your taste buds don't work.

You think people that don't like Wiki is bullshit, I think people that make arguements that make no sense, is just like reading Wiki.

How does a a false statement contradict a true one?

2 statements that say oppsite things are contradictions. So to answer your question, it just does.

[ForrestBlack]

Wiki could also claim that mint was poison and a number of people would nod their head and agree...

[ForrestBlack]

I also know a fairly well known film star who had a bunch of inflammatory nonsense attributed to her as quotes on her wiki and actually getting it removed was kind of horrible for her. People just believe that garbage and actually attacked her for it, but she couldn't technically be the one to have it removed. The fact that it was a wholesale lie actually made it difficult.

I absolutely believe that social encyclopedias have a place on the internet, but the rules that guide wiki are just fundamentally flawed. Companies with integrity ALWAYS have worse wiki entries than companies with lower ethical standards. The notion that we're all supposed to break the rules because that's how it's done is just bullshit, and it's institutionalizing poor ethical standards. It's creating a culture of liars. So, lower your standards or get kicked in the teeth by your competitors, disgruntled past acquaintances, and god complex having shut ins? No, I do not approve.

The answer seems clear though. EVERYBODY should be allowed to contribute. Site owners and interested parties, history makers and outside observers. It's the only way it could avoid being totally corrupt.

[Buster Friendly]

Sorry I brought up the BB entry Amelia. It was the only concrete example of the kinds of stuff that goes on there that I thought everyone here would understand.

Like I said, there are a few things which I have personal knowledge of which have wiki entries and it gets awfully distorted.

[Rockwulf]

I don't know what you people are talking about. It's incredibly difficult to say something online that isn't true.

[Rockwulf]

By the way, did anyone else see the ABC news report that said I has the most diseased penis the world has ever seen?

It came right after the report about Amelia G being the first person diagnosed as "Legally Incompetent at Everything"

[Amelia G]

By the way, did anyone else see the ABC news report that said I has the most diseased penis the world has ever seen?

It came right after the report about Amelia G being the first person diagnosed as "Legally Incompetent at Everything"

See, once again the mainstream media gives credit to a man for a woman's accomplishments. Everyone should know that I actually have the most diseased penis the world has ever seen, mostly because Dr. Frankenstein sewed it on badly.

[Amelia G]

Sorry I brought up the BB entry Amelia. It was the only concrete example of the kinds of stuff that goes on there that I thought everyone here would understand.

Like I said, there are a few things which I have personal knowledge of which have wiki entries and it gets awfully distorted.

I know y'all didn't mean any harm. I'm more sensitive on that stuff than is ideal and I suppose it is surprising how sensitive I am because I'm fairly unflappable in a lot of areas. I can totally handle anything which can be met head-on, even if I don't succeed, but I just feel really helpless against the bunch of faceless nameless liars on there.

I am entirely fine with someone having a problem with me for who I am. Not that I don't fuck up sometimes, but I'm okay with my choices. Really bugs me when someone has a problem with me for something which is not true though.

[Rockwulf]

See, once again the mainstream media gives credit to a man for a woman's accomplishments. Everyone should know that I actually have the most diseased penis the world has ever seen, mostly because Dr. Frankenstein sewed it on badly.

Now I know that's a lie. I read on Wikipedia that Dr. Frankenstein was remarkably competent and that he went out of his way to clone Aphrodite's vagina for you.


How dare you slander him just because he put it on the back of your left knee!

[ForrestBlack]

...just making a little point

[Rockwulf]

...just making a little point

That's what Wikipedia said you'd say.

[ForrestBlack]

That's what Wikipedia said you'd say.

I'm sorry, I was distracted by your rotting wang... what did you say?

[Rockwulf]

I swear, if I have to tell you to stop staring at my wang one more time...

[Morning Glory]

apology accepted.

I wasn't apologizing. I posted relevant information to support my point, and if you don't want to hear it, that's up to you, but I don't feel like I was being in any way unreasonable.

whatever, fuck wikipedia. I don't give a shit about that site, I care about this one. And I don't feel very welcome here when I'm supposed to self-censor not because my opinion is inflammatory or obscene, but simply because it's disagreeable.

Actually, I'd be pretty inclined to take things like that into consideration, because like I said, wiki really isn't that important to me. but to me you saying "I haven't looked at it" doesn't seem to automatically lend to the assumption "no one should ever bring it up ".

[Head Wreck]

its an interesting read.

like the bible take with a bag of salt

[SiouxSinner]

I posted relevant information to support my point, and if you don't want to hear it, that's up to you, but I don't feel like I was being in any way unreasonable.

I think I posted reasonable information that disproved your point.

[Morning Glory]

I think I posted reasonable information that disproved your point.

No, you didn't. You didn't even post an argument.

it just does.

Maybe you should wiki the word opinion and statement, or rather that use a dictionary, because the statement "mint taste terrible" is an opinion not a "true statement"

(from wiki) An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of, or the truth of which is thought unimportant to the person.

In logic a statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false.

Examples of sentences that are (or make) statements:

* "Socrates is a man."
* "A triangle has three sides."
* "Paris is the capital of England."

The first two (make statements that) are true, the third is (or makes a statement that is) false.

We can argue about the bio-chemical reception of taste, but it is ultimately irrelevant because the statement (yes, that is what I mean) that I made was "If you put mint in your mouth it may have a taste." and any other suppositions were quoted from someone else as an example of argument.

[Raza]

I quite like like the idea, as well as enjoy the execution. The idea of filtering information by assigning certain people to be authorities of some sort is rather silly, comforting though it may be.

Of course, the reliability shoots down when touching on socially controversial subjects - but it does that from more exclusive sources all the same. That kind of thing just isn't something to listen to other people about.

[ForrestBlack]

I still think excluding honest people with direct connected experience is totally flawed. They should at least have input up for debate. I'm trying to picture a trial only conduced by liars and somewhat anonymous people who may or may not have witnessed the event second hand, meanwhile the victim and the defendant squirm in their binds while their attempts at relevant input are muffled by gags. How could the truth be reliably illuminated under that circumstance?

This really reminds me of the story about Charlie Chaplin losing his own look alike contest. Third party 'experts' are not nearly as reliable as they like to give themselves credit for.

[Raza]

I don't think the point of Wikipedia is to be a research facility or 'illuminate the truth' of matters it touches on, though. The point is for it to present information as it is available already in an easily accessible manner. If there's something on there that you'd want contradicted - and if you're capable of it, proven false - the thing to do would be to address the source.

If someone is getting enough attention to have a wiki article, the presumption seems to be that they can get their input published elsewhere first. This doesn't always end up being true, but that way the new source can be refered to and judged objectively on reliability - this tends to get confusing if they are the source, because the perspective of someone involved and that of a reader will rest on intrinsically different premises.

I think a nice addiction to wiki would be a confessions system though, where people with relevant first-hand experience can publish it, which can then be refered to in a neutral third person "for what it's worth" fashion from the articles.

[ForrestBlack]

I don't think the point of Wikipedia is to be a research facility or 'illuminate the truth' of matters it touches on, though. The point is for it to present information as it is available already in an easily accessible manner. If there's something on there that you'd want contradicted - and if you're capable of it, proven false - the thing to do would be to address the source.

If someone is getting enough attention to have a wiki article, the presumption seems to be that they can get their input published elsewhere first. This doesn't always end up being true, but that way the new source can be refered to and judged objectively on reliability - this tends to get confusing if they are the source, because the perspective of someone involved and that of a reader will rest on intrinsically different premises.

I think a nice addiction to wiki would be a confessions system though, where people with relevant first-hand experience can publish it, which can then be refered to in a neutral third person "for what it's worth" fashion from the articles.

In theory, I think you are kind of correct, but in practice, it hasn't worked out so well. People who have cited accurate press and such have had their entries consistently flagged for being somehow corrupt because the info they cited was too positive in some sort of potentially commercial way. Also, no matter how you cut it, there is still a lot of room for opinion over fact. There is one character on there that has single handedly kind of destroyed the history of a few genres of music I really like, for example. I could dedicate my entire creative output to trying to correct their litter, but I, as a productive knowledgeable person, do not have the luxury of enough time and energy to dedicate to rooting them out. So, people who check seemingly innocuous entries to construct articles and such are getting a corrupted skewed version of the truth. This is compounded by the fact that people actually directly involved are not supposed to even fix things themselves.

[Morning Glory]

well to me a big part of it is citation from other sources that account for the wiki articles. and in my experience the wiki administrators do a good job of pointing out when this is lacking. While links to a bunch of people saying stuff on the internet doesn't really guarantee that there is any truth or knowledge on their part, at least it provides a consensus of opinion which is more reliable than just one anonymous wiki editor's propaganda campaign.

As has been discussed the problem arises when there is no other source of information to be found that is potentially unbiased. Is it wrong for wiki to report anything in that case? I also agree that people shouldn't be able to edit their own corresponding articles, because a person saying bad things that aren't true is just as malicious toward accuracy as you saying good thing that aren't true either.

Another legitimate argument is that wiki makes people lazy in their research because of it's easy accessibility- most people use it as their primary source without even trying to find another POV on the subject. That is also due to recognition as an internet meme, where it just becomes the common practice to post a wiki article as it does to browse with google or post a youtube video. The kind of odd thing is that these other sources suffer all the same faults, but seem to be accepted without scrutiny. Or maybe that is unfair, maybe people on here are just more astute to scrutinizing, because it seems that you don't find that doubt among most internet residents.

You could really write a whole thesis on the subject of how the internet has brought easier access to more and more worthless information. Commit the ultimate act of irony and make it a wikipedia article.

[SiouxSinner]

No, you didn't. You didn't even post an argument.





(from wiki) An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of, or the truth of which is thought unimportant to the person.

In logic a statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false.

Examples of sentences that are (or make) statements:

* "Socrates is a man."
* "A triangle has three sides."
* "Paris is the capital of England."

The first two (make statements that) are true, the third is (or makes a statement that is) false.

We can argue about the bio-chemical reception of taste, but it is ultimately irrelevant because the statement (yes, that is what I mean) that I made was "If you put mint in your mouth it may have a taste." and any other suppositions were quoted from someone else as an example of argument.

You didn't even quote me correctly and you changed your question, your question was...

Quote:
How does a a false statement contradict a true one?

My answer was...
2 statements that say oppsite things are contradictions. So to answer your question, it just does.

It just does, is the correct answer to that question.

And yeah mint has a taste, it is typically known as a flavor- because it has a flavor that people taste.

You had gaven your opinion about something, while others may have different opinions, it does not make their opinion wrong or right (or what you wanna call a statement) which yes can be the same thing- anything someone writes is a statement of some sort-
However, it is what "you believe" as you said, it can be wrong or correct (false or true) but just cause you said it don't make it so and vice versa.
You gave a direct opinion based on (me knowing what an opinion is, and your own quote from wiki)
You can not verify that wiki is what you say it is, so it is clearly what you "think/believe" it is, not what others may "think and or believe" it is.

And correcting what people say (or quoting from them) is not an example of an argument.

Quoting something completely wrong and not what the person said, is just fuckin stupid since the orginal post is still there.

[SiouxSinner]

You could really write a whole thesis on the subject of how the internet has brought easier access to more and more worthless information. Commit the ultimate act of irony and make it a wikipedia article.

I think (it's my opinion) that Wikipedia is full of worthless information, such as when you search for "the internet" on wiki and scroll down to Leisure activities... you find this quote:

"Many use the World Wide Web to access news, weather and sports reports, to plan and book holidays and to find out more about their random ideas and casual interests."

I think that is worthless information, as is most of the internet.

Yes your right wiki has made tons of people lazy and most of the people using wiki do not check the citations, which is one of the problems with wiki. Also many don't take into mind that often the citation is wrong and even if the site that the information or quote from has updated the information to be correct- wiki does not.

[Morning Glory]

However, it is what "you believe" as you said, it can be wrong or correct (false or true) but just cause you said it don't make it so and vice versa.

Right, that was my point. that an opinion or a false statement does not change the true or factual quality of a thing. Such as the example "Paris is the capital of England." which is false, or if you were to say "I think (or believe) that Paris is the capital of England, which is true; neither one of these statements is relevant to what the capital of England is, because it is London, no matter what anyone says. (We could get into a greater philosophical argument about the correlation between perception and semantics and existential reality, but I think that may be a bit off course for this purpose.)

And correcting what people say (or quoting from them) is not an example of an argument.

well, maybe correcting them could be an argument if your correction was counter to their original point, but yes, I agree with you. Simply quoting someone is not an argument.

[Rockwulf]

Examples of sentences that are (or make) statements:

* "Socrates is a man."
* "A triangle has three sides."
* "Paris is the capital of England."

The first two (make statements that) are true, the third is (or makes a statement that is) false.

Not true. Socrates WAS a man...

[homicidal_kiss]

what about encyclopedia dramatica? i think it makes a great mockery of wikipedia...and all wikis. let's talk about ed.

[Morning Glory]

Not true. Socrates WAS a man...

hmm. ::checks out wiki::: nope, I can't seem to find any firsthand accounts detailing his genitalia.

Actually, no matter where you look there doesn't seem to be any archeological evidence to verify that Socrates, the man or the woman, ever really lived at all.

Bill and Ted, you fuckers....

[Raza]

I <3 Encyclopedia Dramatica. Funniest thing on the whole damn internets.

In theory, I think you are kind of correct, but in practice, it hasn't worked out so well. People who have cited accurate press and such have had their entries consistently flagged for being somehow corrupt because the info they cited was too positive in some sort of potentially commercial way.

Which, of course, is totally unlike you.


But I'm sure there's a lot of very tinted information on there, yes. Personally, the only things I sortof trust onthere are the science articles; everything else I treat as critically as if someone had told me face to face (or it had been published by a single writer).

[Amelia G]

I <3 Encyclopedia Dramatica. Funniest thing on the whole damn internets.



Which, of course, is totally unlike you.


But I'm sure there's a lot of very tinted information on there, yes. Personally, the only things I sortof trust onthere are the science articles; everything else I treat as critically as if someone had told me face to face (or it had been published by a single writer).

It is Blue Blood company policy that nobody who works for Blue Blood may edit Wikipedia or its spoof cousin Encyclopedia Dramatica. I know that no one who works on Blue Blood projects really gets the whole wiki thing, so I'd rather not poke the dragon on that. And that includes not flagging any ridiculous entries.

[Amelia G]

I think ED is pretty retarded to be honest. Whenever i read one of their articles I can't help but imagine how much more funny, pointed and downright humiliating the whole thing would be if they didn't insist on using juvenile profanities and mundane examples of political incorrectness all lashed out unimaginatively with typos and undeserved self-satisfaction. I can barely concentrate to find the alleged irony between the words FAG, AIDS, NIG*ER & RETARD. The only thing which makes me laugh is when targets on Youtube make super serious vlogs to counteract the claims or when ‘victims’ feign support for the site as some type of damage limitation.


Give me wikipedia anyday.

As someone who has been victimized by Encyclopedia Dramatica, I have to beg to differ. I don't recall the exact quote, but they called me a crackwhore in a very humorous way. I mentioned it in my LJ at the time and I think there were actually morons who thought that I called myself a crackwhore and decided I must have written all of ED in my copious spare time. Yeah, that would totally make sense.

The problem with a lot of supposed references written by anonymous people is that somebody always feels attacked and somebody always misattributes where the apparent attack is coming from. Makes everyone awfully paranoid. The difference with ED is that nobody thinks they should believe what is on there. Or at least most people know that would be silly.

I haven't read any entries Blue Blood is in on there since around July I think. I don't want to feel compelled to spend my time correcting such things. But I was not horribly offended that, last I looked, the article contained laughable inaccuracies like that Blue Blood got the idea to include erotica from **. Only most places I'd be like, uhm, ** founded in 2001, Blue Blood founded in 1992, Sean Suhl sold copies of Blue Blood magazine over the counter when he worked as a retail clerk for a friend of mine and he saw in person how much Blue Blood touched a chord with people.

Only ED doesn't need any facts because they don't pretend to have any.

[Raza]

Hehe, self-censored.

It is Blue Blood company policy that nobody who works for Blue Blood may edit Wikipedia or its spoof cousin Encyclopedia Dramatica. I know that no one who works on Blue Blood projects really gets the whole wiki thing, so I'd rather not poke the dragon on that. And that includes not flagging any ridiculous entries.

If you have a bad history with them that's a generous gesture to help avoid half-informed would-be white knights stirring up some well-intended fresh shit on your behalf, but I should hope those policies apply only to BB related articles?

[Amelia G]

Hehe, self-censored.


If you have a bad history with them that's a generous gesture to help avoid half-informed would-be white knights stirring up some well-intended fresh shit on your behalf, but I should hope those policies apply only to BB related articles?

No, it is an across-the-board policy. I don't think it would be appropriate to edit a perceived competitor's entry either and nobody wants to have to quibble about what counts as too close to what subject matter. Although I admit I edited the mint entry once to demo the site's problems to my mother. I've been told pretty convincingly that both ** and GB have edited entries about Blue Blood on there, but I really don't want to see Blue Blood stoop to their very low level.

[Raza]

So wanna tell me just this once whom or what '**' refers to? The conversation is getting a bit silly at this point, and the filter doesn't seem to leave anyone any less inclined to discuss the matter - it just leaves said discussion entirely unintelligible.

[OliX]

Wikipedia?

[Raza]

Wikipedia?

I think 'edited' was a verb rather than an adjective in this instance. 'GB' aren't the initials of Encyclopedia Dramatica, either - and then there's the fact that you just said 'wikipedia' without it turning into a pair of asterix.

[Morning Glory]

So wanna tell me just this once whom or what '**' refers to?

Hm. shall we just say it's a variation of the phrase "self-destructive women" (which I always found to be highly ironic, BTW), and leave it up to interpretation?

[Raza]

Ah, them. Makes sense.

I'm not generally one to add my voice to the choir, but I'll weight in that I've no love for that bunch whatsoever.

[Amelia G]

Ah, them. Makes sense.

I'm not generally one to add my voice to the choir, but I'll weight in that I've no love for that bunch whatsoever.

Given that they are pretty much a deliberate pox on individual freedom, it is hard to love an organization which took the look of individuality and rebellion and the punk feminist rhetoric of your truly, and repurposed it as sex-negative, junior high, girlie competition bitchiness revisited.

Oh and GB would be the initials for a purportedly gothic zine. I first came across said zine when the owner applied to model nekkid and then later when giving him customer service for his GothicSluts.com membership. Blue Blood packaged a lot of content for his company. To cut a long story short, his attorney told me it wasn't worth pursuing what I felt he owed Blue Blood because he didn't have anything and the most I would end up with was owning a zine I wouldn't want. Then he sent out a press release dissing all of the Blue Blood girls he had so proudly showcased on his covers and told me he wanted desperately. I'm told he also vandalized Wikipedia entries for Blue Blood and I find this plausible, for a variety of reasons, although with Wikipedia there is never a conclusive way to be sure.

But the people like ** and GB tend to always do well in the short run and fall by the wayside in the long run. They do make the ride less fun for everyone else though. Just the nature of things I guess.

[Rockwulf]

Hm. shall we just say it's a variation of the phrase "self-destructive women" (which I always found to be highly ironic, BTW), and leave it up to interpretation?

Emo Bitches? Nope.


Goofy Broads? Close but no.


Whiny Twats? No.


Cutter Cunts? Nah, that's right out....



Hmmmm.